As the Roman Republic began expanding further and further, land distribution issues arose within the society. Rich aristocrats acquired lands from their plebeian neighbors, creating expansive latifundia throughout Rome, while the voiceless plebeian class shrunk smaller and smaller. Amidst the unrest, two brothers, each elected as tribune, arose to give the lower class a voice against the wealthy aristocrats. Both Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius, fought so persistently that their opposition of the Roman government led to their respective assassinations. The assassinations of the impactful brothers led to a period of unrest and civil war in Ancient Rome, forever impacting the history of Rome. The Gracchi brothers were historically significant …show more content…
For example, Tiberius Gracchus passed a law known as Agrarian Law, which argues that land should be redistributed from the wealthy latifundia owners to the lower class. By redistributing land from the wealthy to the poor, Tiberius took land away from people of wealth and power and gave it to common people, furthermore advocating for the plebeians. By passing Agrarian Law, Tiberius Gracchus established himself as historically significant. However, Gaius Gracchus improved on his brother’s land reforms. For example, Gaius Gracchus slightly modified the laws put forth by Gaius, improving them. By doing so, he advocated even further for the rights of small landowners, fighting for even more land reform. He continued and expanded upon the legacy of his brother, continuing to fight for land reform. By adding onto the law of Tiberius, Gaius Gracchus, like his brother, cemented his significance in history. Thirdly, Plutarch recounts in his bibliography The Life of Tiberius Gracchus, when Tiberius Gracchus “observed that [Octavian] himself was amenable to [Agrarian Law] as a large holder of the public land, he begged him to remit his opposition, promising to pay him the value of the land out of his own means, although these were not splendid.” Tiberius exhibits his dedication to the issue of land reform most prominently here. By offering his own financial resources for Octavian’s support of his law, Tiberius exemplified the commitment he had to actually changing the land distribution in Ancient Rome, demonstrating his significance in history. Through their fighting for Roman land reform, the Gracchi brothers authenticated their historical
“I’ll be out of here and away from all you knaves for one time anyway, as not a month will pass before you’ll see whether I’m nobody or a somebody.” The story of Bianco Alfani reflected the nature of 14th century Florentine society where, as Alfani remarked, the election to public office could make or destroy a person. In late 14th century and early 15th century Florence, decreased population and expanding commerce provided a favorable environment for ambitious individuals. The real life examples of Buonaccorso Pitti and Gregorio Dati demonstrated the positive role of ambition in Florence. Pitti, a nobleman had an extremely successful career, partaking in military campaigns, holding public office in Florence and being an ambassador to foreign courts. Gregorio Dati, the grandson of purse venders, engaged in commerce, rising in social standing which culminated with his election to public office. Holding office was a definitive sign of success and recognition in Florence. In contrast was the tale Bianco Alfani, a deemed man unworthy of office. As told by Piero Veneziano, Alfani was the chief jailor in Florence who was duped into believing he had been named captain of the town of Norcia. Alfani publicly made a fool of himself, spending all his money and creating a great fanfare over his supposed appointment. Comparing the lives of Pitti and Dati to the story of Bianco Alfani illustrates how economic and social change in 14th century Florence produced a culture centered on reputation and commerce. For men like Pitti and Dati, who flourished within the constraints of Florentine society, their reward was election to office, a public mark of acceptance and social standing. Those who were ambitious but failed to abide by the values o...
Throughout Gaius Gracchus life, events changed his motivation and desire in public office. At first, he designed his primary goal to rouse the populace against the current government in a personal goal for the death of Tiberius. Following the initial upset in the system of government, he moved to create an improved system for the people of Italy through social reform. Many laws and decrees enacted favored the populace, but offended the senators. Even though Gaius created progress for the Senate for decades, it came at a price of death for him.
The Significance of the Gracchi "When Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus sought to establish the liberty of the common people and expose the crimes of the oligarchs, the guilty nobles took fright and opposed their proceedings by every means at their disposal" - Cicero. The Gracchi brothers were clearly well intentioned men who had the interests of Rome at heart, instead of their own, which was a common attitude amongst the other senators. The reforms of the Gracchi were long over-due and their programs were genuine attempts to deal with Rome's problems. During the Gracchi's existence, Rome was facing a number of social, political and economic problems. They were frustrated with the conservatism and selfishness of the oligarchy and so adopted methods which threatened the balance between the senate, the magistrates and the people which had existed for a very long time - in this way they can be regarded as revolutionary.
Much ink from the historians’ pens has been spilled seeking to explain the reasons behind the fall of the Roman Republic. As Gruen notes, “from Montesquieu to Mommsen, from Thomas Arnold to Eduard Meyer…the Republic’s calamity has summoned forth speculation on a grand scale. How had it come about?” (1) Certainly, from one perspective, it can be said that the attraction of this event is to a degree overstated: it is based on the belief of the stability of political systems, of the deterrence of the possibility of radical changes in political worldviews and general social arrangements and structures. Furthermore, it marks a decisive shift, in the political arrangements of a grand civilization of Ancient Rome: in other words, it marks an instance where even within the continuity of a singular civilization, such as that of Rome, there can be the presence of political turbulence and abrupt changes of directions regarding the form which political power and hegemony ultimately assumes. Yet, what is perhaps more important from the perspective of the historian is the precise sense in which the events of the collapse of the Roman Republic still remain ambiguous, arguably because of the multi-faceted manner in which this fall occurred. Hence, Gruen writes: “the closing years of the Roman Republic are frequently described as an era of decay and disintegration; the crumbling of institutions and traditions; the displacement of constitutional procedures by anarchy and forces; the shattering of ordered structures, status and privilege; the stage prepared for inevitable autocracy.” (1) In other words, the collapse of the Roman Republic is complicated because of the multiple dimensions in which such degeneration ultimately happened: it was not mere...
Upon expansion of the Roman Empire, lie trials and tribulations for the government to rule the foreign lands and keep the population in check. The Gracchi brothers grew up during a time when the Roman Empire was still under civil unrest. The Roman people were divided, lands were unevenly distributed, the government was disorderly, patriotism ceased to exist, and slave labor made it harder for citizens to uproot themselves from poverty. Tiberius, the elder brother, was the first to bring up the agrarian laws, and was followed after his death by his younger brother, Gaius Gracchus. The brothers knew of the significance of winning the side of the commoners to assert their power over the empire. By ways of the agrarian laws, and other reforms, the two brothers were able to win control of the masses, leaving the senate to fear what could happen if these two rise in power. According to Gaius Gracchus, “in a certain pamphlet, has written that as Tiberius was passing through Tuscany on his way to Numantia, and observed the dearth of inhabitants in the country, and that those who tilled its soil or tended its flocks there were imported barbarian slaves, he then first conceived the public policy which was the cause of countless ills to the two brothers.” (Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus 8.7)
Over the span of five-hundred years, the Roman Republic grew to be the most dominant force in the early Western world. As the Republic continued to grow around the year 47 B.C it began to go through some changes with the rise of Julius Caesar and the degeneration of the first triumvirate. Caesar sought to bring Rome to an even greater glory but many in the Senate believed that he had abused his power, viewing his rule more as a dictatorship. The Senate desired that Rome continued to run as a republic. Though Rome continued to be glorified, the rule of Caesar Octavian Augustus finally converted Rome to an Empire after many years of civil war. Examining a few selections from a few ancient authors, insight is provided as to how the republic fell and what the result was because of this.
The statement, ‘Tiberius is condemned by many ancient historians (including Tacitus), and his reign is often portrayed as being detrimental to the welfare of the Roman Empire’ is invalid as he treated the Senate fairly, created strong economics and security in the state and boosted the empire into an unprecedented state of prosperity. This hypothesis was proven as Tiberius’ administration of the Empire was outstanding as he was coherent to Augustus’ policy and kept the provinces content by governing them well. The financial status of the Empire was boosted 20 times that at his accession by building highways and saving money through hosting less games and repairing buildings. Tiberius followed Augustus’ steps and maintained a respectful relationship with the Senate by showing courtesy to the consuls and the body as a whole. The rise of Sejanus proved devastating to Tiberius’ rule as his execution fueled Tacitus’ claim of a ‘reign of terror’ and angered the people of Rome.
Every empire, dynasty, government, regime etc. has consisted of both good and bad leadership. This directly affects the society in which they oversee and/or control. The infamous Roman Empire experienced its share of triumphs and depression through its leader’s actions. Run as a monarchy, the kings of Rome had various ways of implementing their authority. Many of them chose to rule based on their interests and desires while others catered to the welfare of Rome’s booming population. Depending on the leader some received accolades and others faced a tragic ending due to their ignorance. Prior to the formation of the republic Rome the people endured both the spoils and hardships of war. The actions and/or qualities of the good and bad leaders of Rome had a direct correlation with its well being. Opinions vary but there were definitely standouts on both ends of the spectrum.
Rome became a powerful empire engulfing much of Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia and what seemed like this great entity called the Romans were always in the search of more territory and land to conquer and assimilate into their ever growing vast empire. However, this was not always the case, before Rome became one of the greatest empires in all of history, Rome was a republic. They were government consisted of a Senate who much like our country today represented certain classes of the citizens of the Republic. During the growth and rise of the Roman republic conquering neighboring territories and competing for land grabs was not Romans primary objectives. Romans believed in the well being and wealth of Rome, and if that meant the total destruction of a potential adversary, then as history will show that is unfortunately to the detriment of the adversary what happened.
The Roman Family: Center of Roman Society. The Roman family after the advent of Christianity has been widely discussed in Roman History. Different historians have looked at the topic in different ways. There are two articles at hand, which deal with this very topic.
Perhaps the most influential politician in the Roman Republic, Marcus Porcius Cato, better known as Cato the Elder, was a superb orator and the careful cultivation of his personality gave him significant political clout throughout the 100s BC. Decades before the rise of Gaius Marius and other generals engaging in the political realm, Cato the Elder warned of “Roman warlords” he feared would dominate politics at the expense of the Senate’s power. A conservative and traditionalist, Cato had genuine fears men and indeed families that exploited their wealth and martial power would cause in-fighting within the state, crippling the government. Notably, the alliance of the Scipio and Aemilii Paulii families beckoned the short-comings of the Roman state,
The Roman Republic began in 509 B.C.E. with the overthrow of the Etruscan monarchy. In 27 B.C.E the Roman Empire began with Octavian Caesar becoming the emperor, this ended almost 500 years of republican self-government. There is much debate over why Rome became so powerful so quickly. Many think it had to do with Rome’s military strength. Others think that it was because Rome knew of and controlled most of the trade routes. Still others believed it had to do with the technology that was advanced during the Roman Republic. All of these factors played significant roles, but which one played the most important role?
After the reign of Tiberus, there were many poor leaders, two of which were Caligula and Nero. Caligula killed his sister, among many other people and made his favorite horse a senator. Nero murdered his wife and mother and was accused of setting fire to Rome. Such deeds were common because the laws of the empire favored the rich landowners and who ordered and were the target of many assassinations (Gibbon, 70).
The Roman Republic began approximately around 509 B.C. when the nobles drove the King and his family out of Rome. This monumental incident helped shape the start to the transformation of the monarchy into a republican governmental system. This is known to have begun by that of the Roman nobles trying to hold their power that they had gained. The Republic was “[a] city-state [which] was the foundation of Greek society in the Hellenic Age; in the Hellenistic Age, Greek cities became subordinate to kingdoms, larder political units ruled by autocratic monarchs” (Perry 105)
For years Rome was guided by great men, such as Cincinnatus and Scipio Africanus, who led the Republic through hard times, conquering such enemies as the Etruscans and the Carthaginians. Large-scale war united Roman society in its common goals. However, after Scipio’s victory at Zama in 202 BC, a new Roman world began to take shape. Roman soldiers returned home from their victory to find that they could not pay for their farms, becoming “squatters” on their own lands after having to sell them to richer men. The Senate became corrupted, and despite the Gracchi brothers’ best efforts, the rich patricians soon monopolized nearly all aspects of the Republic, from trading and “farming” to governing the people.